Grow up. It's source control, not marriage. Sometimes it makes sense to make bigger commits (there is lots of reasons to sometimes present the checkin in a manner other than 1000 little incremental fixes; its a naive techie who thinks otherwise) or fix those you have made. Get over it and relax; don't try to add morals to source control.
He is light-heartedly using 'morals' as a part of his schtick. No-one is expected to take it seriously.
Underneath the style there are some interesting points being made about how certain uses of certain features breaks other features. I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal.
That's an interesting response given that I spent quite a few words talking about how great `git blame`, `git bisect`, `git rerere`, and `git branch --contains` are and why rewriting history breaks them. Was it tl;dr? Or did I not get my point across effectively?
You didn't explain why rewriting local, private history breaks any of those things unless you keep your local, private branches around indefinitely in un-rewritten form. If I rebase, it replaces my previous branch, not extends it. `git rebase` only breaks bisection if you are using it incorrectly (on public commits).
> He gives little reason why the features says get broken are more important than the other things. He just states it.
I'm having trouble parsing the above, so I may be responding inappropriately, but it seems to me the OP is saying:
Here are some awesome and dangerous tools A, B, and C that people like to use and recommend. There are pitfalls to be aware of, analogous to lying, when using these tools. Here is where such "lying" gets you into trouble: X, Y, Z, etc. If you use or depend on X, Y, or Z, then be cautious when using A, B, and C.
I agree, the author just denounces things as 'lies', so therefore they're bad, with some pretty loose reasoning as to why. Yes, it breaks things like git bisect if you use it incorrectly. And?
Comments
Grow up. It's source control, not marriage. Sometimes it makes sense to make bigger commits (there is lots of reasons to sometimes present the checkin in a manner other than 1000 little incremental fixes; its a naive techie who thinks otherwise) or fix those you have made. Get over it and relax; don't try to add morals to source control.
He is light-heartedly using 'morals' as a part of his schtick. No-one is expected to take it seriously.
Underneath the style there are some interesting points being made about how certain uses of certain features breaks other features. I'd be interested to hear your rebuttal.
This is supposed to be light hearted?
What am I supposed to rebut? He gives little reason why the features says get broken are more important than the other things. He just states it.
That's an interesting response given that I spent quite a few words talking about how great `git blame`, `git bisect`, `git rerere`, and `git branch --contains` are and why rewriting history breaks them. Was it tl;dr? Or did I not get my point across effectively?
You didn't explain why rewriting local, private history breaks any of those things unless you keep your local, private branches around indefinitely in un-rewritten form. If I rebase, it replaces my previous branch, not extends it. `git rebase` only breaks bisection if you are using it incorrectly (on public commits).
> He gives little reason why the features says get broken are more important than the other things. He just states it.
I'm having trouble parsing the above, so I may be responding inappropriately, but it seems to me the OP is saying:
Here are some awesome and dangerous tools A, B, and C that people like to use and recommend. There are pitfalls to be aware of, analogous to lying, when using these tools. Here is where such "lying" gets you into trouble: X, Y, Z, etc. If you use or depend on X, Y, or Z, then be cautious when using A, B, and C.
I agree, the author just denounces things as 'lies', so therefore they're bad, with some pretty loose reasoning as to why. Yes, it breaks things like git bisect if you use it incorrectly. And?